The Best Pro-Life Argument In History From...The Washington Post?
Mothering comes naturally to mothers. It’s almost like it’s in the name, or something.
Each day, through my Substack column, I try — sometimes successfully — to explain my thoughts regarding a range of different political and cultural issues. But sometimes — and thankfully rarely *wink*— others make an argument more succinct, powerful and clear than I could ever hope to achieve.
You should subscribe regardless, by the way.
And in this case, I was bested by a delightfully unintentional Washington Post.
Indeed, with “This Texas teen wanted an abortion. She now has twins,” The Washington Post’s Caroline Kitchener provided one of the best pro-life arguments I’ve ever seen.
The story of Brooke Alexander, a Texas teenager who decided not to get an abortion, provides readers with the fundamental truths that radical “pro-choice” — i.e. pro-abortion — activists dread: that pregnant women carry unborn humans who have the right to exist, and their existence can be a net positive if their parents take responsibility for them.
Shocking, right?
Here’s a brief rundown of just a few highlights from an article you really should read for yourself.
Brooke found out she was pregnant late on the night of Aug. 29, two days before the Texas Heartbeat Act banned abortions once an ultrasound can detect cardiac activity, around six weeks of pregnancy. It was the most restrictive abortion law to take effect in the United States in nearly 50 years.
The Washington Post acknowledges that pregnancy involves “cardiac activity” — otherwise known as heartbeats — and uses negative and subjective language “restrictive” alongside an article which includes images of two babies who would have been killed had it not been for these “restrictions.”
Bravo.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Ian Haworth to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.